memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Beta talk:Style
Greetings, 81.77.24.92 Hi who created this site. :I'm Chops, and I created this site. Feel free to add anything that's missing. (which is quite a lot at the moment.) --Chops 02:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) (edit: factual error--Chops 02:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)) headings for sections I have a few questions regarding standardizing the novel pages. Many pages currently use "Summary" for the first heading and then under it post the text from the back of the book. Do you recommend using "Introduction" instead? Similary, I believe the majority of pages currently have Memory Alpha and such under "External Links". Should this be "Connections"? And are you actually recommending a heading "Categories" at the end that is similar in look to other headings? One or two book pages that the community thinks really are up to standards would be very appreciated. For example, even this style page, the template novel page, and the "A Time to Kill" page actually slightly disagree on the look of a few things. I am happy to go through a edit a bunch of book pages, but it would be nice to only have to do them once. -- Jdvelasc 07:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC) :I think the best example we have currently is, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, so that would be a good one to go off. As for a heading for Categories at the end of the article, that heading is on the style page simply as a means to seperate that information for the bulk of the text. In terms of adding categories to the article, we just add the usual, [Category:Category Name]. --The Doctor 09:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Well I've just gone through and standardised the Time to Kill entries, hope that helps. When bringing a page up to date, yes the blurb should be under Introduction, with a Summary, or space for one under a summary heading below. The Connections section includes external links, now and next boxes, navigation boxes and categories, in other words, all the connections. The Motion Picture is a good example, other example pages could be Unity or A Stitch in Time, they are sort of my main project pages, so I tend to keep them up to date with any style changes. Also, if you have a look on my user page there is a page layout template. -- 8of5 10:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Reviews This page suggests the standard novel/comic/episode/etc page should have a reviews section. I do not think it appropriate for us as a reference to be swaying readers with reviews. A note in the information section on particularly successful or controversial novels maybe but I think reviewing is too far. Any objections to removing that section from the manual of style? -- 8of5 12:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC) :No objection whatsoever. --Seventy 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Greeting, from a new users --GinnyStar 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Hi. I am unsure if I can following along with the codeing, for one the font style changes I am having a very hard time reading, that is why I add it to the Talk and Discussion Pages, my infromation, right now I don't have a scanner working to add images yet, its had a bad hardware problem and I needed to exchange it. I left more infromaton on my talk page abut my self. So if some could help me get the coding right I would be very grateful.--GinnyStar 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC) :I'm not sure what you mean -- the only font style changes we make are two apostrophes around words for italics and three apostrophes around words for bold-facing, aside from multiple equal signs around words to make headers, double brackets to make links and double wavy brackets to insert templates. :Like I said before, go to a complex page and click "edit", and then look at how the code works there and I'm sure you'll see the tricks you need. -- Captain MKB 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Tense I'm a bit confused about the section about what tense to write articles in. I understand that production articles can be written in present tense, and in-universe articles are written in past tense, but I've noticed that articles about books end up in either. It's a "real world" article, but I'd suspect that summaries should be written in past tense. Although, is a featured article and the book summary is written in present tense (which makes it sound REALLY awkward). --Captain Savar 22:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC) :Summaries on pages for novels/comics/short stories/etc are written in present tense, just like the stories they are summarising. --8of5 02:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC) ::The stories they summarize are typically written in past tense, not present.– Cicero 23:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Short Stories When we cite a short story should we include which anthology the story comes from. For example: :( = ( ) Or just do it like this?: :( ) = ( ) – CapnCrunch 23:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC) :Either are acceptable. The one with the anthology is probably the preference though. --18:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC) ::Thanks, I was thinking the one with the anthology would be better myself. – CapnCrunch 02:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Citations Our current sourcing system does not seem well-suited to highly-sourced articles. Footnoted citations could greatly streamline the bodies of a number of articles, and enhance readability across the board. Are these acceptable?– Cicero 23:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC) :As long as the user had the knowledge to make the footnotes link properly -- and to test the links to make sure they do work -- I'd be ok with it, but let's see what the other users say. -- Captain MKB 01:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) ::I did suggest the idea a couple of years ago, but several users made a good argument, that you would be constantly moving to the bottom of the page and back up again when checking the source. While I agree it looks neater, that would be an annoyance with longer articles. However, if there were a way in which a tooltip could be displayed then I would support that. --The Doctor 07:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC) :::After you've clicked on a reference and read it, using your back arrow should immediately (and seamlessly) move you back to the point on the page you were reading. Even with long articles, there shouldn't be a problem. There isn't even anything to load when moving between links, so the entire process is delay-free.--Cicero 20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC) ::::Oh I agree with you completely its something I prefer, however some people are harder to convince. --The Doctor 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC) And I would be one of those... As the doctor mentioned, this has been suggested before, and one of the reasons it was rejected back then was the up and down thing. Yes you can easily use back and forward to zip up and down the page finding the citation info. Or you could use the system already in use throughout the entire site and have the citation next to the information, there, visible, without any need for jumping up and down the page, clicking and backwards and forwarding. I see you've already jumped the gun and put this on the Miranda Kadohata, which is a fairly typical example of an article here, notice how the vast majority of the article consists of paragraphs with a single citation, the existing citation system performs very well with that. Yes there are the odd paragraphs with a bit of a jumble of citations, but they are a very much a minority. There are already a few pages where the jumpy reference system is used though; year pages and crew manifests. Things that are lists, where the citation would swamp the actual information. That I agree is a good place to use them. The recent addition to the Galaxy class page's ship listing is a sensible use of the system. --8of5 23:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) :I'm sorry for using the footnote reference style before asking. I'm used to editing Wikipedia, where that style of reference is preferred, and didn't discover this site's preference until I was trying to figure out why the footnotes weren't working on Kadohata's page. (I still have trouble finding the style guide.) :I would suggest that most paragraphs have only one reference because the most articles are currently poorly cited and structured. Even in the Kadohata article, the limits of the current referencing system are clear. This short article includes several paragraphs which include information from multiple publications, and which would be significantly disrupted if the current sourcing system were used. (At least it doesn't contain any multiple-source sentences.) As we improve the referencing of the site generally, the existing style will increasingly encounter problems.--Cicero 01:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC) It makes a lot more sense for wikipedia to reference like that, they can cite from a Huge variety of sources that require more detailed explanation in the references section. We on the other hand cite from a relatively small selection of sources, for which we have a pretty comprehensive and established system of citation already in place (SERIES media: Title), it's concise, neat, and easy to read the source immediately. --8of5 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC) :The source, certainly, but not the article. To which are we writing a guide, foremost - the licensed Star Trek universe, or the products which describe it? Footnoted, sources can be read only slightly more slowly, and cleared of inline references, articles can be read much more easily. By way of example, two random consecutive paragraphs of Data's entry (otherwise unedited, even for improvement of reference placement): :With inline references: ::Data was constructed by Dr. Noonien Soong, and first activated in 2335 at the Omicron Theta colony on planet Kiron III. Unlike his "older brother," Lore, he was not given emotions, and at first was very childlike. In 2336, his early memories were wiped and replaced with the logs and journals of the colonists. Shortly after, the colony was attacked by a Crystalline Entity and Data was left deactivated on a rock shelf. ( ; ; ). He was discovered on February 2nd, 2338 by the crew of the and reactivated, becoming familiar with Starfleet Data entered Starfleet Academy in 2341. ( ) ::In 2343, Data completed an engineering honorarium at Utopia Planitia. A year later, he piloted the shuttle Curie from Earth to Utopia Planitia ferrying a number of Starfleet officers and one civilian, the nine year old Kathryn Janeway. After arriving, he took Janeway on a tour of the facility. ( ) Almost thirty years later in the Delta quadrant, Janeway's chief engineer tells Pralor Automated Personnel Unit 3947 about Data, in 2372. ( ). :With footnotes: ::Data was constructed by Dr. Noonien Soong, and first activated in 2335 at the Omicron Theta colony on planet Kiron III. Unlike his "older brother," Lore, he was not given emotions, and at first was very childlike. In 2336, his early memories were wiped and replaced with the logs and journals of the colonists. Shortly after, the colony was attacked by a Crystalline Entity and Data was left deactivated on a rock shelf. He was discovered on February 2nd, 2338 by the crew of the and reactivated, becoming familiar with Starfleet Data entered Starfleet Academy in 2341. ::In 2343, Data completed an engineering honorarium at Utopia Planitia. A year later, he piloted the shuttle Curie from Earth to Utopia Planitia ferrying a number of Starfleet officers and one civilian, the nine year old Kathryn Janeway. After arriving, he took Janeway on a tour of the facility. Almost thirty years later in the Delta quadrant, Janeway's chief engineer tells Pralor Automated Personnel Unit 3947 about Data, in 2372. I agree regarding Intro/Blurb/Summary - there are too many introductions to a page. The "Summary" is a perfect place for both the blurb and the back cover summary. As for blockquoted and italicized for the back cover summary, I think that's already in the style guide (but I'm a one-day old newb) - if it's not, I also agree. I'm not a huge fan of "from the book jacket" - if we're trying to get away from the notion that different printings of books have different features, well, jacket itself is a feature of a particular book's edition, IMO - I believe it's another inference for "dust cover", which are never seen on paperbacks. I'd just shorten it down to "From the book". With that said, as a completist, I would prefer that differences in summaries be indicated: if the first edition of a book has a different summary than the revised or second edition of a book, I'd want to see both indicated. --Morbus Iff 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) ::Alright: the way The Sorrows of Empire looks and flows is good for me, so I agree that Blurb and Summary should remain separated. However, I would want them italicised and blockquoted (the ":" in wiki syntax) as, semantically, we're quoting the book itself. The usage on TSoE looks nice, but I would argue that blockquote would better serve, semantically, then a definition list (which we're slightly abusing here, as we're not providing a definition so much as a value.). I think part of the way we can clear up some confusion is to rename "Blurb" to "Solicitation" - then it becomes obvious what that heading is for, and causes Captain MKB's argument to be nearly invalid (as it becomes less implied about two separate introductions and more explicit in what the headings actually mean). --Morbus Iff 15:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) : Incidentally, I'm also desiring for a way to have multiple images for a book. As you state, different books and editions can have different covers and packaging approaches. Encounter at Farpoint had two different covers, and I'd love to see both of 'em on the wiki. How would that be handled (this is probably more case-scenario than a set style guideline though...) --Morbus Iff 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) ::I have two concerns with combining the Blurb and Summary sections: ::1. For pages that don't have a summary yet it fills out that section, giving the impression the page is more complete, while at close inspection it would be obvious it is not, I think it could give the impression to a potential editor that the page doesn't need work, so we're less likely to get a proper summary. ::2. For pages that do have a summary I think it looks plain weird, you get the subtitle (whatever it might be, but basically describing that the text that follows is from the book itself) followed by the indented text, followed by the summary, which while it isn't indented so is obviously a bit different also isn't separated enough so it looks like that subheading could refer to that as well, I think that's confusing/misleading/messy, and the only way to overcome that would be to have another subheading, which is essentially the system already in place! ::Morbus raises a good point, one that I'd been having a problem with too, the term is wrong, like Morbus jacket to me reads as a dust jacket, not the physically attached cover. And again as Morbus was saying I want that detail. ::As for multiple covers, we do have a system yes, if there are two covers we put one in the primary cover slot, the second in the "altcover" slot, if there are more than two, then additional covers are listed in the appendices section, either a thumb for a third cover, or using the gallery code (which you can find in the insert bar at the bottom of an edit page). --8of5 15:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Can we get this decided on please? I back Morbus' suggestion of renaming Blurb/Introduction to "Solicitation" and keeping it separate from the "Summary" section. --8of5 01:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC) :I prefer "introduction" over "blurb" or "solicitation" -- I don't like "solicitation" at all, it's just not completely and accurately descriptive of what these texts are. :As to it being a separate section, I already stated I feel they could remain as one, but since other users disagree I am ready to see them separated. -- Captain MKB 19:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC) ::Could you describe what you do feel "the back of the book", "the part of the inner sleeve", or "the solicitation for the forthcoming comic book" should be called, then? I don't think "Introduction" is it, nor "Blurb". All of the above things are designed to get you to buy the item in question - that's their traditional purpose, not to serve as an "introduction", or a "summary" of the book (as summaries tend to give away plot points that would be counterproductive to selling a book). I remain on the side of "official" vs. "unofficial" for why they should be separate sections - the "official" thingy of the book, vs. our "unofficial" summary of it. I'm pretty flexible on what to name the "official" section (and am happy with keeping the "unofficial" section called "Summary"). --Morbus Iff 20:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC) ::Well, "solicitation" certainly doesn't fit for all of these, since the introductory paragraph on the book jacket is in no way a "solicitation". Maybe "description"? -- Captain MKB 21:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC) :::I have always considered the paragraph on a book jacket to be equivalent to the back of paperback book, yes. --Morbus Iff 22:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)